10-31-2017, 12:06 PM
Quote:I guess we're mixing up two things here, now.
First, there was the point that lowest available ISO is not necessarily base ISO of the sensor.
Second, there was a remark by toni that he wishes low ISO settings like Kodak offered on the SLR/c and SLR/n would still be available in today's cameras (just like I do). There's a reason why Kodak offered it back then (improve image quailty by lowering noise, which was an issue back then even at low ISO settings and long eposures), but that's not the reason why I (and I guess toni, too) would love to have this feature in our current cameras.
Yes, you can do a lot with ND filters... but you need to buy them (probably several of them for different filter sizes) and carry them around.
And multiple exposures do not give you smoothened water or clouds, nor do they remove groups of tourists walking around your subject
This appears to become an example of being a bit stubborn. "I demand low ISO 6" - and I can't see any sensible reason for that (I'm not saying who's stubborn, then )
But you might update your outdated knowledge about multi-exposures and how to get a long time exposure impression: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/209...-0?lang=de
Scroll down to "Capture Looooong Exposures" - and that's without the disadvantage of increasing the noise by long exposures* - that's what you get with an ISO 6 camera. It's totally counterproductibe to hunt for less noise by lowering ISO, but then get longer shutter speeds and therefore more noise again. Doesn't make any sense.
It's also without the disadvantage of closing down the aperture and get massive diffractions. Great glass, great sensor and then ruin the best possible results by increasing noise and diffraction.
*) it just remains unclear, if a couple of stacked pictures will not increase sensor temperature - then I would have to live with a disappointment, I guess.